Letters to the editor of the New Haven Register, New Haven, Connecticut, http://nhregister.com. Email to letters@nhregister.com.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds was the right thing to do

Limitations on the capacity of gun magazines make perfect sense to me. The killer in Aurora used at least one drum of 100 rounds. The Newtown shooter used multiple magazines of 30 rounds. It is possible that some of their victims would be alive if it had taken these killers more time to reload.
Why does someone need more than 10 rounds to kill a deer or to scare away a possible intruder? To this date, no one has been able to tell me why a gun owner needs a large-capacity magazine with more than 10 rounds.
I do not understand why Democratic Senator Harry Reid opposes a separate vote on the size of gun magazines, even if there are not enough votes to invoke cloture on a renewed “assault weapons” ban. I support any gun safety legislation that would limit magazines to 10 rounds.
Gary Schark
Hamden

While it is true the Aurora shooter had a 100 round magazine, the bullets jammed in the magazine after 30 rounds. Likewise, while Adam Lanza did use 30 round magazines, he never used all 30 rounds in the magazines, but changed them after using as few as 15 bullets. I doubt magazine size has anything to do with scaring away a burglar, and I doubt anyone needs more than 10 rounds to kill a deer. However, law-abiding American citizens have a right to own and use them. This is not a right GIVEN to them by the government-it is an inalienable right defined by the Constitution. They don't necessarily "need" a large capacity magazine-just as Corvette drivers don't "need" a fast sports car that is capable of doing well over the legal speed limit. The difference here is that no one in America has a "right" to a sports car that can exceed the speed limit, but they do have the "right" to own that magazine. Competition shooters use 20 and 30 round magazines in their tournaments quite often. Senator Reid realizes that the so-called "assault weapon" ban is unlikely to succeed, and feels that by seperating the two issues the magazine ban has a better chance of passing on its own. By including it with the "assault weapon" ban, the proposal will likely fail. Mr. Schark, there is no evidence that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine will have any effect on saving lives...just as the prior "assault weapon" ban had no effect on crime. This is simply a "feel-good" measure to make it appear that the legislators are "doing something". A bill to overhaul the mental health services in this country would be a wiser use of our tax dollars. After all, every mass-murderer in this country over the last 15 years has had mental health issues...and have either been using or just coming off psychiatric drugs. Doesn't that tell you something? So, while I haven't told you why anyone "needs" a magazine, I have told you why NO ONE has the "right" to make them unavailable to the law-abiding citizens of the United States. While we're on the subject-do you really think that taking ANYTHING (large capacity magazines or certain types of guns) away from law abiding citizens will have any effect on crime? If a person is intent on shooting another person, said person breaks the law by doing so. Do you really believe that such a person will worry about choosing a "legal" weapon to do so? (In case you're thinking, "Well, by making these magazines unavailable to the general public, criminals can't get them either", think about all of the OTHER illegal things criminals use...drugs, legal handguns, rifles, etc. Also remember that Police and military WILL have access to such equipment, and therefore these items are still available-a criminal simply has to steal them. Do you think this never happens?

How many rounds do you need when 3 or more thugs kick in your door? They are each going to have more than you. Run to your phone and call the police. While you watch your family raped and murdered, see how long the police take to get there. I have no problem if you choose this option. However this is not my choice. Why is it every time a progressive doesn't like something, no one else should be allowed to have it?

It is low information people like the author of this letter that cause ineffectual laws to be written. The killer in Aurora must have been similarly low information because he tried to use that ridiculous 100-round magazine. Predictably, the piece of junk jammed and the shooter had to resort to his weapons with smaller, more reliable, magazines. The author seems to be deliberately obtuse in claiming that nobody has been able to explain why someone needs more than 10 rounds. Anyone familiar with the issue must have seen the explanation dozens or even hundreds of times. If you are faced with more than one intruder you had better have more than 10 rounds because you don't use your firearm to "scare (them) away" as the author childishly believes. You use the firearm to prevent them from killing you and your family. They will be running and ducking while shooting at you and they might not honor your call for a "time out to reload." When people, like Mr. Schark, who don't know what they are talking about feel they are qualified to make decisions for those of us who actually do know something about the matter, they need to be put in their place. You are in over your head, Mr. Schark. You need to gain some knowledge on this topic before you can have any credibility whatsoever.